> 3. I believe it is *not* right to say that the document cannot go > forward unless &WG accepts it as a working group product. If they do, > that's very nice. If they reject it because of fundamental flaws that > have not been adequately addressed, then loop back to #2. But if they > simply don't want it, that isn't a valid reason to stop the document > from progressing.
If it's a standalone document, publishing without going through a working group is perfectly valid. But this modifies a standards track protocol, and would be published as standards track. The bar is higher. Having said that, I think the draft is silly, the appeal was silly, AD sponsorship is silly. Limited TSVWG resources are better spent elsewhere. Lloyd Wood http://about.me/lloydwood ________________________________________ From: tsv-area [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba [[email protected]] Sent: 18 March 2014 18:18 To: Joe Touch Cc: joel jaeggli; [email protected]; [email protected]; Martin Stiemerling Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AD sponsoring draft-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt-09 Just one bit here that Joel has touched on, but that I want to say clearly: > The authors need to make the case to the TSVWG (?) that this needs to become > a WG doc, and then we can all scrutinize/optimize it in public. 1. It's absolutely right to say that &WG (be that TSVWG or any other) needs to review a document that's being put forth for IETF consensus. 2. It's absolutely right to say that the comments that result from that review need to be addressed. 3. I believe it is *not* right to say that the document cannot go forward unless &WG accepts it as a working group product. If they do, that's very nice. If they reject it because of fundamental flaws that have not been adequately addressed, then loop back to #2. But if they simply don't want it, that isn't a valid reason to stop the document from progressing. I think we're likely in agreement on this, but, as I say, I want to put it out there clearly. Barry
